On 04. 01. 22 0:15, Ian McInerney wrote:
Spurred off of the recent lxqt thread in devel (https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/DBK3A4KMS7P3MX6FLXQYNTA665T6X433/) that bumped the soname for another library in the stack without announcing that one, I looked in the packaging guidelines to see if there was anything about how to represent the soname version in the spec and didn't see anything. I know I have seen some mention on the devel list about using a global define to set the so version, and then using that in the %files section instead of a glob on the shared library so that an so version bump is caught at build time and errors it without packager intervention, but that doesn't appear to be listed in the packaging guidelines at all. What are people's thoughts on adding a section about handling so versions alongside the soname section? It say to use the global define/no glob method in the spec (although I haven't decided if I think it should be a SHOULD or a MUST criteria). I feel that could help reduce these unannounced breakages that seem to crop up and that are annoying to scramble to fix afterwards. Thoughts? Or did I overlook a place in the packaging guidelines that already discusses this?
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok _______________________________________________ packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
